Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I am delighted to have secured the opportunity to express my regret at the proposed revision to Highway Code rule 149 on using mobile phones while driving. I say at the outset that I do not oppose the content of the rule change, but I do not think that it goes far enough and I have a number of questions on which I would like to press my noble friend the Minister—I am delighted to see her in her place—for a response.
For example, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its 30th report, noted in its conclusion that
“the House has made clear the strength of its concerns about the Department for Transport’s piecemeal approach to changing the Highway Code”.
I ask my noble friend in particular: when we considered a Motion to Regret in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, some two months ago, why could not these changes have been included as part of that consultation and consideration before both Houses? It seems extraordinary that, less than two weeks after one set of rule changes came into effect, we are presented with, effectively, another. I would like to understand the department’s thinking in that regard.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee expressed its concern
“that the hard copy version of the Highway Code is so out of date.”
That was discussed in the previous debate. Can my noble friend say where we are with a hard copy and how up to date the current Highway Code is on the website?
Perhaps most importantly for the purposes of the debate this evening, I would like to understand why rule 149 as revised is not extended to e-scooters, e-bikes and bicycles. There must have been a very good reason why that was not the case. To make my point: as I was walking in from my London flat to the House today, I was midway across a pedestrian crossing and was approached by a cyclist on his mobile phone—one hand bicycling and one hand on the mobile phone—on the wrong side of the road, and it was not clear whether he was going to stop. Cyclists and those on e-scooters and e-bikes are using handheld phones inappropriately and I would like to understand why the department has not addressed this issue. That has to be a cause of concern. The ABI has expressed very robustly why there is a need for regulation, and I would like to understand why the department did not take this opportunity to include e-scooters more generally in this regard.
As the House may not be aware, I remind it that, in both the last parliamentary Session and the current Session, I have had a Bill seeking to understand why causing death or serious injury by cycling, e-bikes or e-scooters is not placed on the same legal basis as other aspects of the Highway Code, or prosecuted in this regard. I will press this in a Bill in the next parliamentary Session as well if I am fortunate enough to secure a place in the ballot.
Turning to the Explanatory Memorandum to the revision of the Highway Code rule 149, I would like to understand in particular paragraph 6.2, which states:
“The Code does not itself create legal rights and obligations; a failure to observe its provisions does not in itself make a person liable to criminal proceedings. But such a failure can be relied on as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings”.
It then refers to Section 38(7) of the RTA. So we are creating, in effect, a criminal offence, and my noble friend did indeed say that—either in the debate on the Motion to Regret from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, or in the debate in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in Grand Committee.
Paragraph 7.9 states that
“the Department plans to include stronger and clearer advice on gov.uk about the use of mobile phones while driving to address some misunderstandings that were evident from consultation responses for example, people wondered whether this change would affect their use of phones as sat navs secured in cradles, which it won’t.”
I would really like to understand whether this paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum was consulted on. It would be good to have a little more clarity because, subsequently, paragraph 11.1 states:
“No guidance is required for the mobile phone Rule change”—
but we have just been told in the earlier paragraph that it is.
Why is this so important? I totally accept that most cyclists are responsible, but there are some very irresponsible and reckless cyclists. Many of them do not stick to the roads and they mount the pavements, which they strictly should not do. It is of even more concern when we see what is happening with e-scooters. I understand that in the Kantar consultation that the Department for Transport did, 72% of those using e-scooters responded that they did so “for fun”. Frankly, in some of the situations that many of us have been put into, we feel absolutely terrorised by those who are riding e-scooters irresponsibly.
The Met has published some helpful information on the web:
“E-scooters are classed as motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Which means the rules that apply to motor vehicles, also apply to e-scooters including the need to have a licence, insurance and tax. It’s not currently possible to get insurance for privately owned e-scooters, which means it’s illegal to use them on the road or in public spaces. If you’re using a private e-scooter you risk the vehicle being seized under S.165 Road Traffic Act 1988 for no insurance.”
It goes on to state the level of penalties. One can be issued with
“a £300 fine and six penalty points on your licence for having no insurance”
and
“up to £100 fine and three to six penalty points for riding without the correct licence.”
It goes on to state other offences as well.
I would be interested to press my noble friend on how the Government intend to respond to the ABI press release and the letter that it has sent to the department, showing that in the latest figures, for the year ending June 2021, there were 882 accidents involving e-scooters resulting in 931 casualties—the equivalent of 17 people every week—of which 732 were e-scooter users. It asked, modestly, that the data from the current government trials be shared with the relevant stakeholders and that the experience of other countries that have deregulated the use of e-scooters be considered. It asks respectfully that there should be a degree of regulation, but it draws the line at liabilities falling on to motor insurers and premium-paying motorists without a corresponding insurance requirement for e-scooters. My noble friend will be more familiar with that letter than I am, and I would like to understand how the Government intend to respond.
I pay tribute to Matt Briggs, who lost his wife in February 2016. She was mown down while crossing the road, completely innocently, by a cyclist who caused injury by means of wanton or furious driving, which is the case the prosecution brought. It was an illegally-used bicycle—it had no brakes. As of yet, this issue of equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles has not been addressed.
To conclude, I ask my noble friend the Minister to address these questions. Why the piecemeal approach, with changes to the Highway Code being brought literally within two weeks of each other? Why will rule 149, as amended, apply only to cars and other motor vehicles, and neither to e-scooters, which are recognised  as vehicles under the law, nor to e-bikes and regular bicycles, when we know that cyclists are using hand-held mobile phones illegally?
How do the Government intend to address the concerns of the Metropolitan Police that e-scooters are motorised vehicles being driven by people under 16, who have not passed a driving test and are not insured? How will the Government respond to the ABI about insuring e-scooters, e-bikes and bikes generally, and properly ensure the regulation of their use? Finally, when will the Government amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to create criminal offences relating to dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling for users of pedal bikes, electronically assisted bikes and e-scooters, as for other motor vehicles? I beg to move.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, of course has a very interesting family history on this subject. I might perhaps suggest that his view is not quite correct. I think that if he was granted the right to vote, he would still have the right to resign from this House and stand as a candidate. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Thurso was once a Member of this House, then left this House, stood for election to Parliament and was elected as an MP. Then he lost his seat as an MP and came back to this House after a by-election of hereditary Peers. So the issue is not quite so simple.
We are talking about 800 people being added to an electoral register of 47 million, so I say to the Government that they should not have too much to fear from those 800 people being added, especially as quite a few of the 800 might vote for their party. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that there are only a number of issues which we can really send back to the elected MPs. I personally think that issues such as the 6 million to 9 million people not on the register or incorrectly registered are much more important than 800 Peers and we may subject ourselves to some ridicule in the other place if we are seen to be prioritising our votes as Peers in a general election. If it happens and the Government accede, I will not be unhappy—I would quite like to have a say in electing somebody who will have a vote on budgetary matters and who might become the Prime Minister—but it is not an issue that I would personally want to press to a vote on this occasion, because I think there are more important priorities, particularly for this House at this stage of the Bill.